Today morning I went for Holy Mass at the SSPX chapel in Rome.Father Aldo Rossi the SSPX Prior in Albano, Italy offered it.I waited to meet him after Mass. He had nothing to say to me.There was no denial or clarificatin on the report,'SSPX has changed dogmas and doctrine'

The SSPX agrees with me or do not know how to respond.

The SSPX's ecclesiology is a rupture with that at the time of St. Teresa of Avila.

(I am writing this in front of the door of the church of St. Teresa of Avila. Rome, which is along side their General Curia House.The wooden door of the Church sculpture on aspects of the life of this Spanish mystic and Doctor of the Church.I have come to this church numerous times.Within are specimens of the saints hand writings in the original.)

SSPX ECLESIOLOGY

The SSPX ecclesiology is Cushingite while that of the times of St. Teresa of Avila was Feeneyite.

The SSPX has changed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and the doctrines related to EENS. They have changed the Nicene Creed and rejected the Athanasius Creed with their Cushingite new theology.

They claim to affirm Cantante Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 on EENS ( Feeneyite).At the same time they affirm the baptism of desire ( Cushingite).

At the Latin Mass they recite the Nicene Creed which says and means ' I believe in one baptism for the forgivness of sins' .However theologically they mean three or more known baptisms.Most of them are without the baptism of water.

They say Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition and mean it is a rupture with EENS ( Feeneyite).Yet it is an EENS which in reality they do not affirm.

They say they affirm the Syllabus of Errors but the Syllabus of Errors was based on the old ecclesiology and the foundation of the old ecclesiology was EENS ( Feeneyite).The ecclesiology of the Syllabus of Errors was not EENS ( Cushingite).

For Bishop Bernard Fellay, Fr. Pierpaolo Petrucci and the SSPX priests in Italy Lumen Gentium 14 ( catechumen saved without the baptism of water) and Lumen Gentium 16 ( saved in invincible ignorance without the baptism of water) is Cushingite and not Feeneyite.LG 14 and LG 16 refer to explicit cases.So they are relevant and exceptions to EENS( Feeneyite) and the Syllabus of Errors.Their position is such a complicated doctrinal mess, that it is no wonder that Don Aldo Rossi had nothing to say this morning. He probably intended well but did not know from where to start.

If I was Bishop Fellay I would say that I hold the traditional teachings on religious liberty,ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue according to Vatican Council II and I would appeal to the Vatican Curia to do the same.

I would say that I affirm Vatican Council II( Feeneyite), the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Feeneyite),Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite), extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Feeneyite) and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949( Feeneyite).

So there is no change in the old ecclesiology for me.It is upon this ecclesiology that the Syllabus of Errors is based.So there will be no change on the three doctrinal points.

So in accord with the Syllabus of Errors I affirm religious liberty, ecumenism and exclusive salvation in the Church with respect to non Christian religions.This is not contradicted by EENS ( Feeneyite), Vatican Council II( Feneyite),Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Feeneyite), the Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite) and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(Feeneyite).

I would accept the first part of the Letter( 1949) which is Feeneyite and reject the second part which is Cushingite.The second part contradicts the first part and so I would have to choose.

I would accept the Baptism of desire ( Feeneyite) and reject the baptism of desire ( Cushingite).Similarly I would accept being saved in invincible ignorance ( Feeneyite) and reject invincible ignorance ( Cushingite).

So I would affirm Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 with no exceptions.I would be saying outside the Church there is no salvation as does the Athanasius Creed.

I would inform Ecclesia Dei and the Vatican Curia that Vatican Council II is not a problem for me it is line with the dogma EENS ( Feeneyite).

I would be rejecting however Vatican Council II( Cushingite), the Catechism of the Catholic Church( Cushingite), Nicene Creed( Cushingite), EENS( Cushingite), the Letter1949( Cushingite)and other magisterial documents interpreted with irrational Cushingism as a theology.

This would be my doctrinal position which is Conciliar and also traditional.-Lionel Andrades

TERMS DEFINED

Feeneyism: It is the old theology and philosophical reaoning which says there are noknown exceptions past or present, to the dogma EENS.There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.

Cushingism: It is the new theology and philosophical reasoning, which assumesthere are known exceptions, past and present, to the dogma EENS, on the need for all to formally enter the Church.It assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical but objectively known.In principle hypothetical cases are objective in the present times.

Baptism of Desire.It refers to the hypothetical case of an unknown catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is an invisible case in our reality it is not relevant to the dogma EENS.

Invincible Ignorance.This refers to the hypothetical case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.

Council of Florence.One of the three Councils which defined the dogma EENS.It did not mention any exceptions.

Liberal theologians.They reinterpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as objective cases, known in the present times.

Vatican Council II(Cushingite).It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with Cushingism.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer not to hypothetical but known cases in the present times. So Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the dogma EENS.

Vatican Council II (Feeneyite).It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to hypothetical cases, which are unknown personally in the present times.So Vatican Council II is not a break with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism of return, the Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite-one baptism),the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation and the non separation of Church and State( since all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell).

Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.It assumed hypothetical cases were defacto known in the present times. So it presented the baptism of desire etc as an explicit exception, to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.It censured Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.Since they did not assume that the baptism of desire referred to a visible instead of invisible case.The Letter made the baptism of desire etc relevant to EENs.From the second part of this Letter has emerged the New Theology.

Baltimore Catechism.It assumed that the desire for the baptism of an unknown catechumen, who dies before receiving it and was saved, was a baptism like the baptism of water. So it was placed in the Baptism Section of the catechism. In other words it was wrongly assumed that the baptism of desire is visible and repeatable like the baptism of water or that we can administer it like the baptism of water.

Catechism of Pope X.It followed the Baltimore Catechism and placed the baptism of desire in the Baptism Section.

Nicene Creed ( Cushingite)It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' and means there are more than three known baptisms. They are water, blood, desire, seeds of the Word etc.

Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite).It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and means there is one known baptism the baptism of water.

New Theology:It refers to the new theology in the Catholic Church based on hypothetical cases being objective in the present times.So it eliminates the dogma EENS.With the dogma EENS made obsolete the ecclesiology of the Church changes. There is a new ecclesiology which is a break with Tradition.

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( Cushingite).It refers to the dogma but with exceptions.All do not need to defacto convert into the Church in the present times, since there are exceptions.

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( Feeneyite).It refers to the dogma as it was interpreted over the centuries.There are no known exceptions to all needing to tormally enter the Church, with faith and baptism, to avoid Hell.

Catechism of the Catholic Church( Cushingite).CCC 1257 contradicts the Principle of Non Contraduction. Also CCC 848 is based on the new theology and so is a rupture with the dogma EENS( Feeneyite).

Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Feeneyite).CCC 1257 does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction since there are no known exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. There are no known exceptions, since God is not limited to the Sacraments.

When CCC 846 states all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church,CCC 846 does not contradict the dogmatic teaching on all needin to formally enter the Church. CCC 846 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which states all need faith and baptism for salvation.

Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ( Feeneyite). It means accepting the Letter as Feeneyite based on the first part .It supports Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.The traditional interpretatiion of the dogma EENS does not mention any exceptions.

Letter of the Holy Office ( Cushingite). It is based on the second part of the Letter.It rejects the traditional interpretation of EENS. Since it considers the baptism of desire ( Cushingite-explicit) and being saved in invincible ignorance ( Cushingite-explicit cases) as being exceptions to EENS ( Feeneyite).It worngly assumes hypothetical cases are objectively visible and so they are exceptions to the first part of the Letter.

-Lionel Andrades

________________________

AUGUST 20, 2016

Enter through the narrow gate : The Catholic Church is the narrow gate